Armed And Dangerous: Regulating Security Guards

November 14, 1990|By Ira A. Lipman.

Fifteen years ago an on-duty private guard employed by my firm accidentally shot and killed an acquaintance in a Little Rock, Ark., restaurant. It was an incident that changed my thinking forever about the perils of providing security guards with firearms. It`s why I watch with foreboding as our nervous and violence-prone society increasingly embraces the myth that armed guards can keep us safe.

Armed-guard service is attracting renewed interest throughout the country. While no precise statistics are available, recent estimates are that up to 50,000 security guards working today carry handguns. That`s more than the combined number of full-time law enforcement officers in New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles, according to the latest data.

What`s fueling interest in armed guards-and in private security generally-is the perception that local police departments are simply stretched too thin. The growth of private guards is in the double digits. Remarkably, by the year 2000 there will be three time as many private guards as police officers.

Security guards have increasingly assumed quasi-police functions. A number of states give private security personnel authority to make felony arrests when there is ``reasonable cause`` to believe a crime has been committed. And unlike sworn police officers, guards are not required to inform suspects of their Miranda rights. Some states give private security authority to act as ``special police`` within a specific jurisdiction such as a plant, store or university campus.

These new guardians of the public safety are in many cases low-paid hourly-rate employees; the average armed guard earns less than $9 per hour. Guard applicants can don a uniform, flash a badge and, in many cases, wield a gun just as soon as they can fill out an employment application.

We`ve seen some recent example of this employment mill on at least two occasions. A security guard (who turned out to have a criminal record) raped a Columbia University coed in February; a few weeks ago another guard stabbed a college student who was petitioning to have the guard removed.

The security industry and the criminal-justice system bear responsibility for this dangerous state of affairs. The industry has failed at self-regulation. It has failed to impose, enforce or even agree on minimum standards. There is probably no other industry in which a convicted felon can obtain a position of trust so easily as in private security.

The problem has been compounded by apathy and ignorance at the state legislative level. Today, guard companies are regulated by a dangerous patchwork of state standards-nearly all of them inadequate. Eighteen states allow felons to serve unconditionally as security guards. Eight states have absolutely no training requirements for guards that carry guns; most others have only minimum standards for armed guards, such as having no prior conviction record.

Consider, in contrast, the way police departments treat deadly force. Most cadets get about 100 hours of training on the subject. Many are now turning to computer simulation. Bergen County, N.J., recently unveiled a Firearms Training System, where officers armed with a laser-powered pistol react to any of 100 different life-threatening scenarios played before them on an eight-foot video screen. The goal, of course, is to recreate the anxiety and tension of armed confrontation and train officers to think before they act. I doubt that one in a thousand armed guards on the street today could pass this test.

Ultimately, standards must be set at the national level. We need regulation to prohibit the hiring of convicted criminals, to require psychological and background screening of guards and to set minimum levels of education and training in the use of deadly force.

In addition, private security firms need to be granted greater access to employee background information currently made inaccessible by state employment and privacy laws.

We learn again and again about the finely calibrated judgment necessary for the responsible use of firearms. It takes just a second to fire a gun;

often no amount of time can remedy the consequences.

As security guards continue to assume police functions, and the myths of armed-guard service grow ever more seductive, government must impose a higher standard on the industry. To do less is to endanger the public safety.